UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7071
JOHN B. RUFFIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WARDEN MCGARRITTY, Greenville State Prison;
WARDEN MILLARD, Greenville State Prison
(Official/Individual Capacity); WARDEN DAVIS,
Greenville State Prison (Official/Individual
capacity); WARDEN TRENT, Greenville State
Prison (Official/Individual Capacity); UNIT
MANAGER EVERETTE, Greenville State Prison
(Official/Individual Capacity); RUFUS
FLEMINGS, Warden, Regional Director, State
Grievance (Official/Individual Capacity);
LIEUTENANT TINSLEY, Internal Affairs, Virginia
State Department of Corrections; OFFICER
AUTRY, Inmate Hearing Officer, Greenville
State Prison (Official/Individual Capacity);
OFFICER TILLERY, Grievance Coordinator
(Official/Individual Capacity); DOCTOR
LAYBOURNE, Greensville Correctional
(Official/Individual Capacity); DOCTOR
BRADLEY, Greensville Correctional (Official/
Individual Capacity),
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CA-04-266-2)
Submitted: November 19, 2004 Decided: December 1, 2004
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John B. Ruffin, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
John B. Ruffin appeals the district court order
dismissing all of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) claims, except that
he was held in segregation without due process, for failure to
exhaust. Ruffin further appeals the district court order
dismissing his § 1983 claim that he was held in segregation without
due process as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2000). We
have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find
no reversible error. We note that even if Ruffin’s claim that he
was denied access to his legal materials was exhausted, it is also
frivolous under § 1915A(b)(1) because he failed to demonstrate
injury or prejudice caused by his inability to obtain those
materials. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -